Feb. 22 Readers' letters: Guns do not make you tough

From Mercury News readers

Posted:
02/21/2014 05:29:44 PM PST

Updated:
02/21/2014 05:29:44 PM PST

Stop believing that guns make us safer

I grew up in a time when guns were considered a useful tool rather than something to make you feel better about yourself. Guns do not make you tough. In fact, relying on a gun shows that you are afraid. If you think that data prove that more guns make us safer, ask yourself this: Would you be safer from gun violence if 100 percent had a gun or if 0 percent had a gun? It is time we stop believing that guns somehow make us safer.

Jerry Gudeman

Santa Clara

Liccardo would further erode San Jose police

Mayoral candidate, Sam Liccardo, released his political platform and it lacks reason. His efforts to dismantle the San Jose Police Department will continue, if elected mayor. The reason officers are leaving is the result of San Jose having the lowest rate of total compensation among all Bay Area cities. Liccardo's suggestion to penalize those hiring agencies lacks wisdom and forethought, opening the way for further criticism of our elected leaders.

I believe a productive approach would be to enhance the compensation package of the SJPD, which would attract officers from other agencies. It costs $170,000 to train each new recruit. Wouldn't it be wiser to allocate some of that expense to compensation which could forgo the expense and loss of trained recruits? The 200 new recruits he proposes would end up costing the city more than $3 million to train, and then they would leave, resulting in another $3 million training expenditure.

Advertisement

Carm J. Grande

SJPD Retired San Jose

Nuclear power is a way to solve climate change

Though I appreciate Secretary John Kerry speaking out on climate change (Page, 4A, Feb. 17), I'm disappointed that he has no vision for how developing countries can get out of energy poverty. Instead he simply insists that they not repeat the mistakes of developed nations.

What he misses is that developing nations will use the cheapest energy sources available, and those sources will not be solar nor wind in the foreseeable future because they are too expensive.

That's one reason why top climate scientists James Hansen, Ken Calderia, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley wrote an open letter urging policymakers to "advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems" and went on to write: "... continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change."

The world needs an energy source cheaper than fossil fuels, or fossil fuels will continue to dominate our energy future. Next-generation nuclear power is the energy source that can provide cheap, CO2-free energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels.

Luckily, China and India are paving the way for next-generation nuclear power and a way to get out of this climate mess. I wish the U.S. would do the same.

Stephen Williams

Santa Cruz

There's no right to force an abortion discussion

David Zarri contends (Letters, Feb. 18) that "buffer zones infringe on his First Amendment right to free speech, assembly and religious expression."

Protesters may want to "have a quiet conversation with someone in the Planned Parenthood parking lot," but the First Amendment does not grant them the right to do so if Planned Parenthood owns/leases the parking lot, and certainly does not give them the right to have that conversation with someone who does not wish to engage in it.

Protesters could add a sign to their collection saying something like "We can help you with adoption," "We will pay for your health care and delivery" or "Come talk to us about alternatives to killing your baby," but if their entreaties have not changed a decision to come to Planned Parenthood by the time they are 35 feet from the entrance, it's simply too late. And frankly, adding 10 or even 23 feet to that expression isn't going to change many, if any, minds.

David R.L. Worthington

La Honda

New technology helps people conserve water

While I don't disagree with letter writer Sam Grove that "raising the cost of water" will accomplish some conservation, water conservation itself requires both skills and investment in water sparing appliances and technology. This includes home and business water re-circulators, so you don't stand in front of a cold shower/faucet awaiting the hot water, and on-demand water heaters.

Gardeners should install drip irrigators, which are effective and water-sparing. Homeowners need to consider (costly) arid-friendly landscaping. Everyone can replace their washer with front loaders and buy water sparing toilets. Rain barrels are helpful, but anathema to communities that have architectural committees, which will consider them "unsightly."

It is possible to vastly cut your water use. But in order to do that, you will have to spend your own money and obtain appliances and technologies. There will be new habits to learn, like turning off the faucet between needs.

Michael M. Rosenblatt

San Jose

Minimum wage fallacies are just a fear tactic

For years we have heard that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs, the theory being that employers who currently employ workers at the minimum wage won't be able to afford them and so the jobs will disappears.

This begs the question: How will companies function if they eliminate all of their minimum wage jobs? Will fast-food restaurants close or just turn into vending machines? Will upscale restaurants no longer wash their dishes? Will retailers just leave the merchandise out and let us serve ourselves? The idea is nothing more than a fear tactic.

Moreover, the idea that the employers altruistically create these jobs so Johnny and Becky can earn some money for sodas and the movies is equally disingenuous or naive. They need people to do this work and will pay them the minimum wage to do it.

Ironically, letter writer Mertze Dahlin inadvertently makes the best case for increasing the minimum wage by saying, "It is well understood by anyone that these wages are not sufficient for a normal adult livelihood." Exactly the point.